NETHAJI AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision case is against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, in C.C. No. 84 of 2006, dated (13.04.2007, in convicting the petitioners, under Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act and sentencing them to undergo six months of Simple Imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months of Simple Imprisonment and confirmed by the learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, in C.A. No. 8 of 2007, dated 13.08.2010. Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Puducherry, has filed a final report, under Section 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the petitioners, alleging that on 12.11.2005, about 09.30 Hours, at No. 1, Amsavalli Illam, IInd Cross Extension, Sooriyaganthi Nagar, Pondicherry, accused Nos. 2 and 3, petitioners 2 and 3 herein, were found indulging in infringement of newly released Tamil films, viz., Sivaksasi, Maja, Anniyan, Chandramuki and Gajini, without having any copy right, either from the producers of the abovesaid films or from the competent authority for the purpose of selling to the general public. On investigation, it was found that Accused No. 1, Nethaji, 1st petitioner herein, was the person in charge of the said premises. Prosecution alleged that all the accused committed the offences, punishable under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957.

(2.) Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses were examined, besides marking four documents. Material Objects, such as, 358 CDs of various Tamil films, Samsung Writers, Monitor, Mouse, CPU and Speakers, have been marked as MO. 1 to M6. After trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, vide judgment, in C.C. No. 84 of 2006, dated 03.04.2007, convicted the petitioners, under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and sentenced them to undergo six months of Simple Imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months of Simple Imprisonment. On appeal, the learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, by judgment, dated 13.08.2010, made in C.A. No. 8 of 2007, confirmed the same.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment, Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, contended that both the Courts below have failed to consider that no evidence has been let in by the prosecution to prove that DVDs seized, contained the replica of the new movies and that the Court also did not view them. He also contended that none of the copy right owners were examined to prove that the DVDs seized contain the abovesaid movies. According to him, unless and until, prosecution proved its case that the DVDs seized, contain the movies, the offence of infringement of copy rights is not made out and therefore, submitted that both the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners. He raised other grounds also.